In 2007, the USCL made the decision to make available, free of charge, documents from its vast research warehouse to pro-lifers from around the world, including many of the one-of-a-kind documents noted above. We hope you will visit our library often.

On
the evening of Sunday, January 23, 2011, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, Archbishop
of Galveston-Houston, Texas, served as the
main celebrant and homilist at the Solemn Vigil Mass for Life at the Basilica
of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington, D.C.
The Mass is part of the many memorial events marking Roe v.
Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court abortion decision of January 22, 1973. The
Cardinal was joined by four fellow cardinals, 39 bishops, 400 priests, deacons,
priests and religious, and thousands of Catholics pro-lifers, mostly young
people.

DiNardo’s
homily as Chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)’s
Pro-Life Committee followed a pattern
already familiar to pro-life marchers from previous years– Scriptural quotes and comments; a general
welcome with special emphasis on the youthful contingent in the audience; a brief
summary of anti-abortion legislation pending in Congress; a call for Christian unity;
and finally a story aboutDiNardo’s
prison ministry which is tied into the “Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the
Death Penalty,” a program funded and operated by the USCCB Secretariat for
Justice, Peace and Human Development not the Pro-Life Office.

DiNardo
made no mention of euthanasia, contraception (abortifacients), sterilization; population
control, lethal human embryo and fetal experimentation,classroom sex instruction programs which
Planned Parenthood says are necessary to secure Roe v. Wade, pornography, homosexuality, sexual abuse, human vital
organ transplantation and other dangers to human life and the family which make
up part of the traditional broad spectrum of life issues facing Catholics
today. His homily was pretty much a pro forma performance on abortion, with
little real substance. The kind that we have come to expect from the AmChurch
hierarchy.

Houston’s New Abortion Mega Center

Watching
EWTN coverage of the Vigil Mass, I wondered how many Catholics in the audience were
aware that Planned Parenthood’s newest and the second largest abortion super center
in the world (China has the first), is located in the Cardinal’s back yard, on
I- 45, just a few miles from the Archdiocese’s new Cathedral and renovated
Chancery Office.

The
78,000 square foot free standing Planned Parenthood (PP) flagship houses fully-licensed
ambulatory surgical suites for late-term infanticide killings up to six months plus
one week gestation, birth prevention (read abortifacients) facilities, and
regional administrative offices for 35 counties in Southeast Texas and Louisiana. Ironically, the renovated building,
once a bank, is fashioned in the form of a cash register, a constant reminder to
everyone that money is the nexus of PP. Each year, the lives of more than 80,000
babies are snuffed out by chemical and surgical abortion in PP’s Galveston-Houston
facilities at $500 to $2,500 per life. Planned Parenthood is hoping that
business will pick up with its new regional facility. PP says it cannot be held
accountable for “faulty or omitted contraception,” hence the need for abortion
as a back-up.

The
new massive death machine located at the inner city intersection of four black
and Hispanic neighborhoods in Houston
will continue to serve as a genocidal extermination center for thousands of
babies of minority women of low income. The nearby University of Houston
and Texas Southern University will provide additional fodder for PP’s anti-life
engine.

DiNardo Silent on Western Hemisphere’s Largest Aboritorium

Imagine
how inspired, how fired up, Cardinal DiNardo’s listeners at the Vigil Mass would
have been to hear how the Cardinal, like a modern-day Saint George, had
undertaken a well-orchestrated and relentless campaign to slay the Planned
Parenthood dragon. How he rallied his flock of one and a half million laypeople
in opposition to the mega abortion center in his Archdiocese. Surely, this is
stuff that legends are made of.

But
alas! DiNardo was religiously silent on the subject at the Pro-life Vigil Mass. As silent as he
had been the year before at the 2010 Vigil Mass, shortly after PP had announced
its intensions to build its new Murder Inc. complex in Houston.

True
to their mission, many national, state and especially Houston pro-life groups have been picketing
and protesting PP’s massive killing center since day one. But Cardinal DiNardo,
the Chair of AmChurch’s National Pro-Life Office, has been conspicuously silent
over the past two years.

One
of the few public statements he has made in opposition to the new PP mega- center
was in early 2010 during the Protestant-led ecumenical “40 Days for Life”
Prayer Campaign which was co-sponsored by the Houston Coalition for Life and
the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston.

Our participation in
this ecumenical effort is an opportunity to implement the prayer aspect of our Catholic prolife
activities and also fulfill our call to Christian unity. … Followers of Christ share a belief in
respect for all human life, from conception to natural death. Together, we will offer a prayerful, peaceful witness of
our common commitment to the
human person. … The opening of this new Planned Parenthood center in Houston calls all people of faith to defend innocent human
life that is voiceless. … Prayer and witness on behalf of human life in the womb deserve our utmost attention as people dedicated to
upholding
human rights and the God-given dignity and worth of each person (emphasis added).”

However,
the Cardinal has notgiven his “utmost attention” to the matter.

Indeed,
to date, DiNardo has said little and done even less when faced with this
reality of pure unadulterated evil in his own Archdiocese. The children being
murdered are his flock. Doesn’t he care? He is supposed to be a shepherd not a hireling.
Indeed, his crimson robes are a reminder that he must, if necessary, lay down
his life for his flock, not throw them under a Planned Parenthood bus.

Sadly,
as I shall document in my next installment to this series, DiNardo is but one
of many in a long-line of post-Conciliar AmChurch bishops whose silence and
inaction have brought moral ruin and death to America’s shores.

Cardinal
DiNardo’s silence and inaction is a scandal of the first degree not only to Houston
Catholics, but also to Catholics throughout the U.S., because the Cardinal
represents the head of the USCCB Pro-Life Committee. Clearly, the Committee
needs a new leader.

- End-

Note: Part II of this commentary
“How AmChurch Bishops Opened the Door to Roe
v. Wade” is scheduled to appear in
April 2011.

The link to the GloriaTV video “Beatification and Assisi” at
http://en.gloria.tv/?media=126630
was mistakenly sent to my computer trash bin early on Saturday morning, but when
I saw that it was from my old friend, Mary Henry, I pulled it up and seeing
that it related to the World Prayer Meeting of Religions hosted by Pope John
Paul II on October 27, 1986, in Assisi, I settled back in my chair to watch it.
Had I been more observant, I would have noticed that the speaker, Bishop Elias,
represented the Ukrainian orthodox Greek-Catholic Church (UOGCC), and not the Ukrainian
Greek-Catholic Church (UGCC), which has official ties with Rome. This mistake turned out to be somewhat
providential.

The Shot
Heard Round the World

By the time Bishop Elias finished his opening
statement I was wide-awake and sitting on the edge of my seat. He said:

Your
Holiness, on the very first day in the New Year shocking news went around. You
confirmed the apostatical gesture in Assisi.
You intend to repeat and canonize it. We quote
you, “To commemorate the great historic gesture of my predecessor and to solemnlyrenew the commitment of the
believers of all religions, to their own religious faith as a serving to peace.”
Your Holiness, realize that by your acknowledgement of the Assisi gestureyou stood against Christ, and against His Mystical Body,
the Church. …

Obviously, Bishop Elias was just warming up. By
the time the 11 minute video was over, my head was reeling and my heart was
pounding..

Bishop Elias not only called upon Benedict XVI to
cancel his planned October 2011 trip to Assisi, but he also asked the pope to
make public reparation for the sacrilege and blasphemies of past Assisi meetings;
to cancel plans to beatify John Paul II; and to begin the reform of the Church
by removing from office all apostate bishops and cardinals.

Who is this Bishop Elias? Where did he come from?
And perhaps, most importantly, I asked myself, how long would it take for Rome to remove the bishop
from his See? Many criminal clerical pederasts and homosexuals with miters have
managed to evade Rome’s censure for decades on
end, some in perpetuity, but I had a feeling that Bishop Elias would fare less
well once Rome
saw this video.

Fortunately, I was able to answer my own
questions rather quickly, once I realized that Bishop Dohnal belonged to the
UOGCC and not the Vatican-approved UGCC, and thus, what Rome planned to do with him was largely
irrelevant.

Nevertheless, I was happy for my initial error
because I think I listened to the bishop’s message more closely than I
otherwise might have. Alas, for just a few minutes, I actually thought that a
bishop in good standing in the Church had mustered enough courage to publicly oppose
both the beatification of John Paul
II and Benedict XVI’ visit to Assisi.
Silly me.

Why Assisi? Why Not Fatima?

This commentary, however, is not about the
statements of Bishop Dohnal per se. Although,
for the record, I oppose both the pope’s October inter-religious Assisi event, and the
beatification of John Paul II scheduled for May 1, 2011.

Rather, the point of this commentary is to
publicly ask why the Pope, in his quest for world peace, is going to Assisi rather than Fatima
in October 2011. Why is he not following Our Lady’s Peace Plan rather than his
own? Why is the Pope calling for an interreligious gathering of heretics, infidels,
witch doctors and pagans, when he should be calling for the Consecration of
Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary according to her specific requirements –
a consecration carried out by the Holy Father in union with all the bishops of
the world?

October 13, 2011, will mark the 94th
anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun which took place at Fatima
in 1917. The future will mark this date as another miracle, if Benedict XVI
carries out the prescribed Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of
Mary.

Is it not time, once again, to storm heaven with
our petitions and our prayers for this intention? Won’t you help, by personally
making your request to the Holy Father today, and by enlisting the cooperation
and support of your family, friends, pastors, and bishop. The message is really quite short - Assisi No.
Fatima Consecration Yes.

And what if Benedict XVI decides to ignore Our
Lady’s Peace Plan and goes to Assisi?

If, despite all our Masses, prayers and rosaries,
Benedict XVI dismisses Our Lady’s Plan for Peace, let us vow to make October
13, 2011, a day of personal and public reparation including fasting and acts of
penance for all the sacrileges and offenses committed against the most Sacred
Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

[Editor’s
note: On August 20, 2011, CFN
columnist Randy Engel, Director of the U.S.
Coalition for Life and the International Foundation for Genetic
Research/Michael Fund interviewed Mrs. Marielena Stuart, candidate for the U.S. Senate from Florida. Mrs.Stuart is running on a prolife, pro-family
ticket.J.V.]

Randy
Engel: Mrs. Stuart – would you tell our
readers about your family background and your experiences as a Catholic growing
up in Communist Cuba?

Marielena
StuartMy family is originally
from Spain.I was born and raised in Cuba—tragically, under Fidel
Castro’s Communist regime.

I believe that our earliest
experiences in life are essentially points of departure. As a
practicing Roman Catholic and one who respects Church authority I am drawn to
reflect on the events of my Catholic experience, growing up under Fidel Castro’s
murderous Communist regime.

I was taught by my parents to defend our Catholic faith, in spite of the
persecution that we suffered. Obviously, I survived. But thousands of others
have been imprisoned, tortured and executed — among them, members of my family
— as they cried out “Long Live Christ the King!”

Within
the confines of our home I was secretly taught the Catechism by my mother — the
Catechism being the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith. Our
formation had to be strong, in order to fight the evil that surrounded us.

Under
Communism, my living example of greatness and loyalty within the Church was the
priest who risked his life to make sure that I received my First Holy
Communion, while armed Communist military thugs threatened us — as they lined
the walls of my hometown's beautiful church, which dates back to the 17th
Century.

The battle cry in defense of our faith still echoes inside the walls of that
church.

Stuart: Yes. When
we stood up as Catholics against the Communists in Cuba, we did so immediately and
without hesitation. Our defense of the Church was based on faith and
conviction. We did not stop to consider “conspiracies” from the Communist
bureaucrats.

We did not look for public relations maneuvers — nor did we appeal to Cardinals
for help. We were Christian soldiers left in a battlefield of brutal violence
and hatred against our God-given rights — and it was up to us to stand up and
defend those rights. Having lost our liberty, the only source of hope was our
faith and our love for Christ and his Church. The world chose to ignore our
suffering.

Engel: And today?

Stuart: To this day, it still
does. In fact, even the Holy See has increasingly betrayed and abandoned the
plight of the Cuban people under Castro — through diplomatic maneuvers between Rome and Havana.
In contrast, not enough can ever be said about the lay Catholics who never
wavered in their defense of the Church — in spite of the persecution they
suffered under Communism.

Engel: When did you come to the US? Where did
you settle? Your education? Your work in linguistics?

Stuart: I came with my family
in the late 1960’s.We settled in California—and moved to Florida four years ago.My education is in linguistics—with an
emphasis on Romance languages. My work in linguistics has included legal and
international conference interpreting. I also trained for many years as a
concert pianist. My work as a conservative journalist and columnist
also reflects my life experiences under political systems, travel and foreign
languages.

Engel:
Have you always been interested in politics?

Stuart: Having lived many
years under Communism—it is impossible not to be interested in politics.Politics affect us every day of our
lives.It is up to us as citizens to
make sure that the political process will work for the good of humanity—not
against it.This political process must
also ensure that the nation will remain strong and democratic.

Engel: Whatprompted you to run as a pro-life, pro-family
candidate for the U.S. Senate
from Florida?

Stuart:I believe that the killing of innocent human life is
destroying our society—not just morally, but economicallyas well. Unless we
stop this slaughter of innocents, our nation is doomed.

As a long-time prolife activist,
Randy, I know you are very well aware that throughout the world, most
especially in the United States
and Europe, human life has been devalued, and
anti-human ideologies have infected our communities and government.
Innocent human life has become a disposable commodity.

In the economic sphere,
those who promote the sanctity of life are under attack by socialists and
“progressive” economists who see population growth as an enemy of the
economy. Tragically, the latter’s neo-Malthusian policies and
practices have become institutionalized in federal and state legislation.

Over the last 40 years, the
federal government has spent billions upon billions of tax dollars
to promote population control at home and abroad. These
anti-baby, anti-natalist programs have included abortion by
both surgical and chemical means, as well as mass sterilization.

It is time for the federal
government to end its “Stop the Stork” campaign initiated by the U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the early 1970s.

Engel:
As a prolife Senator, would you work to stop
these tax-funded anti-life programs at home and abroad?

Stuart: Certainly. One of my objectives, should I be elected, is
to lead the fight to replace these anti-life programs with profamily and
pro-natalist programs and policies. After all, these are the kinds of policies
and programs which have served this nation well from the founding of the
Republic up until the passage of anti-life legislation four decades ago.

As the representative of the people
of the State of Florida,
I will work tirelessly, openly and publicly to promote and defend the sanctity
of all human life from cradle to grave. I promise to fight especially
hard for the most vulnerable of our citizens-- especially the mentally and
physically handicapped, born and unborn, and the aged and indigent. When
our poor reach out for bread, they should not be given stones to eat. But
a socialist environment does not help the poor. This is why it is
critical that we support private sector growth-- so that more jobs can be
created. Americans should be able to enjoy the fruits of their own
labor-- without dependency on the government.

To date, more than 50 million
Americans have been surgically aborted and millions more have died by chemical
abortifacients and devices. As high as these figures are, they still do not
include the millions of human embryos who have been destroyed in
pseudo-scientific programs involving human stem cell research and IVF programs.

Do Americans really want to
continue this systematic destruction of our future citizens while the push for
euthanasia of the elderly and the infirmed becomes ever more aggressive? What
will become of our nation, if this human carnage is not stopped?

For every death sentence delivered
on an unborn child by abortion, or an elderly patient by euthanasia-- is a
death sentence delivered upon our own nation. Clearly, to be for
abortion, is to be against your own survival.

As a candidate for the United
States Senate I am committed to uncompromising action in defense of the
sanctity of all human life which comes to each of us as a gift from Almighty
God.

Engel:
I noticed that your prolife and pro-family
philosophies are closely intertwined.

Stuart: Of course. After all,the family is the building block and foundation for a civilized
society. The family existed from man’s beginning-- before the creation of
the State and the Church. We need to support legislation that supports
the family and remove legislation which undermines and endangers the family.

Engel:
In looking at your campaign website I was
pleasantly surprised to see that your platform includes a broad spectrum of prolife
issues. Pro-life is not just a single issue, is it?

Stuart: No indeed! Prolife issues, in addition to their moral
implications, are at the very core of many of America’s most pressing problems
related to our economic and national defense problems. That’s why the future of
our country depends so heavily on a return to the protection of all innocent
human life.

Engel:
Before you go, I wanted to briefly ask you
about your interest and expertise in the area of foreign affairs. As a US
Senator, foreign affairs will occupy a great part of your time, so I am happy
to see that so many of your columns on the Renew America website are devoted to
these matters.

Stuart: Yes. The field of foreign affairsis of great interest to me.It
always has been. This includes the dynamics of foreign and security policies,
and the degree of power and influence that each nation has.But most important— how it uses power and
influence to advance its goals.

Engel:
As a traditional Catholic, I’m sure you have
been carefully monitoring events in the Holy Land and in the Middle
East in general?

Stuart: Yes, I have been following these events for many, many
years.

Engel:
In the very short time that we have left, would you please comment on the
continuing Israeli and Palestinian debate?

Stuart: Let me begin by stating that in international affairs the
idea of a compromise is often perceived as a position of weakness, or a
relinquishing of principle; however, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one
whichrequires a compromise that
recognizes and respects the historic and moral claims to this ancient land, by
both Jews and Arabs.This compromise
must include careful consideration of security issues.

The United States is the only reliable
and credible mediator in the peace process.Not Europe—and certainly not the United
Nations.

As Americans we seek peace and
justice for all. The Holy Land should also be
a place of peace and justice for all – as Christ taught more than 2000 years
ago.

Engel:
You have just announced your candidacy for the
US
Senate seat on the Republican ticket? What are your hopes for your
campaign?What are your biggest challenges?

Stuart: I would characterize my campaign as a historic opportunity
to serve our extraordinary nation by protecting human life, by rebuilding our
economy and strengthening the private sector—and by protecting our
constitutional rights.

We need leaders in Washington who
will have the strengthof character and the will to succeed in rebuildingour country—not just
economically, but morallyas well. This is why I am presenting my candidacy for the
United States Senate.

Engel:
Mrs. Stuart, I know that you are personally devoted to Our lady. Today, we have
been discussing all types of conflicts including the war on the unborn and
warring factions in the Middle east. How do
you see all these events in the light of Our Lady’s Peace Plan given to the
three children at Fatima in 1917?

Stuart:
The message of Nossa Senhora de Fátimais fundamentally a
universal declaration of peace from the Mother of Christ, Our Lord. As such, it
addresses all that affects humankind.

Engel:
If
our readers have any comments or questions for you, how can they contact you?

Engel:
Thank
you, Mrs. Stuart. It was my pleasure talking with you this evening.

Stuart: My thanks to Catholic
Family News, and you Randy, for this interview.

- End -

January 7, 2011

The Vatican Circus –
Reflections on the Pellegrini Scandal

By Randy Engel, Director, U.S. Coalition for Life

“Topless Acrobats
Perform for Pope”

“Bare-chested
Acrobats Perform for Pope”

“Pope
Captivated by Shirtless Male Acrobats”

“Surprise
Strippers in Vatican!”

Introduction

These headlines which flooded the Internet and international media following
the Papal General Audience of December 15, 2010, held at Paul VI Hall in Vatican City were enough
to unsettle even the most intrepid post-Conciliar Catholic.

The scandal in question involved the Pellegrini Brothers, heirs to the
well-known Italian circus dynasty, who were invited to entertain the pope and
his entourage and the more than 6,000 visitors assembled for the weekly
audience during the Advent season in Rome.
It was, however, not their short hand-balancing act, but rather their grand
entrance and provocative salutation to the Holy Father that sparked
controversy.

On cue, the four young men mounted the platform area, faced the pope seated
across from his secretary and cardinals on stage, and then in a manner
reminiscent of the Vegas Chippendale male strippers, peeled off their jackets
revealing their bare muscular upper torso. The Fratelli Pellegrini were
accompanied on stage by a statuesque, well-endowed brunette with stiletto boots
who had been poured into a black skin-tight leather outfit and whose task it
was to gather up the performers’ jackets, stroll across the stage and await the
end of the exhibition. The only fashion accessory she lacked to complete the
sadomasochist scenario was a whip.

On July 25-27, 2008, the Pellegrini Brothers appeared in the Gay Circus, a
specially-staged 3-day event set within the framework of the XII EuroGames
(“Gay Olympics”) in Barcelona,
Spain. Up until
this point, the Pellegrini name had been associated with well-known
international circuses including the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey
Circus (USA), the Circus Knie (Switzerland),
and the International Circus Festival (Monte
Carlo).

Billed as “a show for people without prejudices,” that is “a gay and lesbian
friendly audience,” by publicist Irene Peralta, the “Gay Circus” was created as
an artistic tribute to gay culture and as a “contribution to the normalization
of homosexuality.” It featured male/male performers in a homoerotic
setting. Peralta told reporters that “Gay Circus will transform the traditional
understanding of the circus.”

The homosexual media touted the event as an opportunity for parents to
introduce their sons to other forms of sexual love outside the traditional
male/female model, and to give greater exposure to homosexuality as a
legitimate sexual preference. Video selections of the Gay Circus show many
children in the audience. Ticket sales were estimated to be over 12,000.

The theme of the Gay Circus centered upon the eternal struggle between Good and
Evil. Sadomasochist elements which dominate gay culture were visible both in
the costuming and demeanor of the performers. One aerial act featured two male
“angels” in a tight embrace naked except for a g-string. Another, with two
“devils” in black leather jockstraps and harnesses. A short video of the
Pellegrini Brothers performance at the Gay Circus, which was very similar to
the portion of their act performed at the papal audience complete with an
opening strip scenario, showed two burly shirtless men acting as jacket
attendants.

According to Gay Circus producer Genis Matabosch, artistic performance and
quality were the primary criteria for casting, not sexual orientation.
Matabosch admitted he did not know who among the cast was homosexual and who
was not.

The Vatican
Circus Dicastery

So, how did the Fratelli Pellegrini make the transition from the Barcelona
Gay Circus to a performance at a formal papal audience attended by thousands of
Catholics and non-Catholics from around the world as well as the international
media?

The Pellegrini Brothers were in Rome to
participate in the International Congress on the Pastoral Care of Circus and
Traveling Show People being held in Vatican
City from December 13-16, 2010. The event comes under
the jurisdiction of the Curia’s Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of
Migrants and Itinerants, created by Pope John Paul II in 1988. The President of
the Council is Archbishop Antonio Maria Vegliò. The staff is made up of 14 assistants
and a large number of “members,” advisors and consultants including U.S.
Cardinals Adam Maida and Theodore McCarrick.

The last Vatican Circus Congress was held in December 12-16, 2004 with 90
official participants including National Circus Directors, chaplains, religious
and laity including some circus performers. The theme of the Congress was
“Welcoming Circus and Traveling Show People – From Diversity to a Friendly
Coexistence.”

The stated purpose of the Congress is to promote the spiritual welfare of
Catholic circus people, although it serves other purposes as well. For example,
in a major address delivered to the 2004 Circus Congress, Archbishop Agostino
Marchetto, Secretary for the Pontifical Council on Migrants, used the
opportunity to hammer away at a favorite post-Conciliar theme –
“dialogue.” Thus in the Congress’ “Final Document” we read about the need for
dialogue everywhere:

dialogue in pastoral work; dialogue
and mission; training for dialogue; a school to educate for dialogue; dialogue with indigenous
populations; dialogue against every form of prejudice, racism, and xenophobia; dialogue with a view to integration (not
assimilation); dialogue aimed at inculturation,
dialogue implying reciprocity; the dialogue of life; dialogue and new evangelisation; dialogue, liturgy, prayer
and places of worship; dialogue and matrimony; dialogue leading to communion in diversity; and dialogue
and Church discipline.

As the Congress drew to a close, John Paul II told the Congress participants
that the circus and amusement parks “can be turned into a new field of
the great themes of pastoral care, ecumenicalism and the encounter of members
of other religions, and the common commitment to building a universal
brotherhood.”

No doubt the irony of these tributes to Modernism and Progressivism was not
lost on the Catholic circus population which makes up approximately
three-quarters of the world’s circus population. Italy alone has 150 circuses and
65,000 families engaged in amusement parks and fairs.

Although circus families face problems common to society in general, especially
drug and alcohol abuse, care for the elderly, and the education of the
young, the typical multi-generational Catholic circus family is strong in
structure, morally upright, pious and traditional in its beliefs and
practices. Efforts to promote ecumenicalism and “dialogue” have been largely
wasted on tradition-bound circus families.

Another good piece of news is that while the world-wide Homosexual Collective
has made great inroads into many occupations, until 2008, with the creation of
Barcelona Gay Circus, the circus has not been one of them.

Who is to Blame for the
Pellegrini Incident?

The answer is obvious – the leadership of the International Congress on the
Pastoral Care of Circus People and the Pontifical Council for Migrants, as well
asofficials charged with screening
entertainers invited to perform at papal audiences.

The Vatican
has a dress code strictly enforced by the Swiss guards. Why would this not
apply to entertainers at Vatican functions as
well? There is no reason that the Pellegrini Brothers could not have worn the
traditional gymnastic uniform of male Olympic athletes consisting of a
one-piece singlet and matching stirrup pants. And who authorized the dame in
leather?

Further, aren’t security background checks performed on such individuals who
perform within feet of the Holy Father? Was no member of the dicastery informed
of the Pellegrini Brothers’ participation in the Barcelona Gay Circus, an
action which should have disqualified them from participating in the
deliberations of the International Congress as well as being honored as a guest
of the Vatican
with a worldwide audience? Regardless if any or all or none of the Pellegrini
Brothers are homosexual, they freely participated in an immoral production
specifically created to advance the agenda of Organized Perversion. Such action
should never have been rewarded.

After viewing the Pellegrini video, I asked myself even if Vatican
officials knew about the Pellegrini Brothers’ Gay Circus engagement would it
have made any difference? I don’t know.

Vatican
Capitulation in the Face of Organized Perversion

Sadly, the crux of the problem, I fear, is not so much a matter of mere
bureaucratic inefficiency and lax vetting by the Vatican.

It has been at least 40 years since the forces of Organized Perversion, as
manifested by the so-called “Gay Liberation Movement” – with its connections to
a world-wide network of illicit drug trade, pornography, prostitution and
organized crime – declared war on God, the Catholic Church and Civil Society.

Thus far, the Holy See has yet to even recognize that it IS at war with the forces of Organized
Perversion, both within and without the Church, much less launched any kind of
effective resistance or counter measures.

Remember the Austrian Sankt Polten Seminary Scandal which occurred under the
watch of John Paul II? Among the least pornographic photos released by the
media were those showing the seminary’s vice-rector open mouth kissing
the rector at a seminary Christmas party? According to Apostolic Visitor Rev.
Klaus Kung, the seminary was operating “as a veritable brothel.”

Given the extent of seminary homosexual scandals being laid at the door of the
Holy See, why have we yet to hear any announcement from the Holy See that it
intends to clean out the Lavender Mafia from seminaries (and houses of women
religious) world wide, and it is willing to investigate charges of sexual
abuse of seminarians and female novices and nuns by predatory rectors, bishop,
and convent superiors? I have not heard of any such pronouncement.
Have you?

Remember the Msgr. Tommaso Stenico Scandal which occurred under Benedict XVI’s
watch? Stenico, a relatively high-ranking official of the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy which oversees
the world’s priests, was caught on camera in his Vatican
office soliciting homosex from a young man. In his own defense, Stenico
later claimed he was engaged in undercover work for his superiors and that he
maintained a detailed dossier on homosexual prelates and prelates working in
the Vatican.
Stenico was suspended, but we were never informed of the truth of the matter by
the Vatican.

Don’t these scandals coupled with the criminal actions of pederast and
homosexual priests, religious and prelates for which the Church has paid dearly
in terms of loss of souls and billions of dollars in settlement claims suggest
to the Holy See the need for an internal moral house cleaning beginning with
the Vatican
itself.

A more recent case is point was an incident that occurred during Benedict XVI’s
visit to England
in September 2010. The Vatican's chief spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, was
asked by a Catholic reporter at a public press conference if the pope was going
to address the pressing issue of “gay” Masses (with accompanying sacrilegious
communions by openly practicing homosexuals and lesbians) held in Catholic
churches in London. Lombardi responded that, “No it wasn’t on his [the pope’s]
schedule.”

“Why not?” I might ask.

Isn’t the Holy See interested in defending the honor and glory of Our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist? How many
complaints does the pope need to close down these homosexual Masses and
parishes like Most Holy Redeemer in San Francisco
and St. Francis Xavier Parish in Manhattan, and
those in London
and elsewhere?

Now it stands to reason that if the pope cannot bring himself to publicly
acknowledge that the Church is at war with the forces of Organized
Perversion, most especially, the international Homosexual Collective, if he
does not take the threats of these forces of Organized Evil seriously, if he
does little or nothing to support the Catholic laity which has picked up the
gauntlet and accepted this challenge which spews forth from the bowels of Hell,
then his underlings including those officials at the Pontifical Council for the
Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerants will not take the matter seriously
either, even if should mean another public humiliation for the Holy Father and
an attack on the very honor of God and the office of the Papacy, which the
Pellegrini Affair certainly was.

– End –

For additional information contact Randy Engel, Director, US
CL at 724-327-7379 or rvte61@comcast.net.

Dear Friends – Once again I must
take exception to Michael Voris’ recent presentation on homosexuals as victim
souls which was released on September 24, 2010, under the heading “Homosexual
persons ARE different, but in one way many people might not have thought about
very much.”

Voris notes in his opening
statement that homosexuality is a topical issue today that needs to be
addressed from a Catholic perspective. True enough.

He then states that Catholics all
know the Church’s teaching (on homosexuality). This is not true.

Other than perhaps a vague recollection of God’s
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by brimstone and fire in punishment for the
unnatural sins of their inhabitants as recorded in the Old Testament in Genesis 19:24, most Catholics are woefully
ignorant of the Church’s teachings on homosexuality (and its hand-maiden, pederasty),
especially from a historical perspective.

For example, up until the summer
of 2002 when Catholic Family News ran
my series on St. Peter Damian’s Book of
Gomorrah, an eleventh century treatise on clerical sodomy and pederasty in
the Roman Catholic Church, very few Catholics were aware that such a work even existed.
Since Voris has singled out the spiritual aspect of homosexuality, I think it
relevant to cite a short except from St. Damian’s views on the innate malice of
the vice of sodomy which he believed surpassed the enormity of all other vices:

Without fail it brings
death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh,
extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of
the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. … It
opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise. …This vice excludes a man from
the assembled choir of the Church. …This disease erodes the foundation of
faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes away
with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of
prudence. Shall I say more? *

One of the major themes of Voris’
presentation is that homosexuals not only feel different, but they are different, and that this difference
is a source of incomprehensible suffering for them. We are told that this
“suffering,” this “cross” they bear, “must” engender the understanding and
compassion of “non-homosexual persons.”

To which I reply that the
homosexual who, by definition, is sexually attracted to and desires sexual
relations with his or her own sex, is indeed “different,” but in a decidedly
abnormal and perverse way.

Heterosexuality is instinctive in
man. It is the biological norm for the human species. Unless interfered with,
man is heterosexual in his essential nature. All men, including homosexuals, consciously
or unconsciously, strive toward heterosexuality, that is to say, towards
normalcy.

The real “difference” a homosexual
experiences applies not only to his deviant choice of sexual objects, but to
his heavily metastasized personality which is marked by neurotic, masochistic
tendencies that are manifested in an array of phobias, obsessions and other sexual
and emotional aberrations. The habituated homosexual drowns himself in a sea of
self-pity/self dramatization fed by a self-created daily ritual of “injustice
collecting.” His deviant behavior is characterized by markers common to all
sexual perversions – compulsion, fixity, aggression, narcissism, risk-taking,
unresolved conflict, fantasy and the denial and remaking of reality, strong
feelings of guilt and hate, and a graduated perversity. In addition, the anti-culture
in which he finds himself is dominated by illicit drugs, pornography,
prostitution, suicide, and domestic violence including murder.

Voris goes on to lament that unlike
eligible heterosexuals, “a homosexual faithful Catholic” … cannot get married
because he or she desires the same level of intimacy, but cannot even entertain
it.”

That’s correct. So where’s the
beef?

Marriage is between one woman and
one man. It was instituted by God in Paradise
in order that the human species might perpetuate itself and that the husband
and wife should be cooperators with God in bringing forth new life – immortal
souls to populate the heavens and, thereby, give glory to the Creator. Two men
or two women who wish to “marry” each other just don’t cut it. And, if they were indeed “homosexual faithful
Catholics” they would not even “entertain” such a perverted idea so obviously
opposed to the Natural Law.

Please take note also of Voris’ erroneous
use of the word “intimacy” in connection with homosexuality. Such usage reveals
either a debilitating degree of naïveté or a deliberate attempt to deceive the listener.

Homosexual acts can never be
described as “intimate,” nor can they ever be described in any language
remotely resembling terms that are used to describe the conjugal act whereby
completeness and wholeness are achieved by the reconciliation of complementary
beings and “two become one flesh.”

The homosexual is not a “lover.”
He is a sexual consumer. Homosex is profoundly narcissistic and selfish. Genital
body parts are joined or stimulated, but there is no sense of communion, unity
and oneness that characterizes the mature and loving marital embrace. Sodomy
and fellatio are particularly degrading and violent practices.

The homosexual lives in a fantasy
land. He likes to play house and even pretend “marriage.” It is only when he is
willing to trade in his fantasies for reality that his healing and movement toward psychic, spiritual
and emotional wellness can begin. Voris’ sentimentalization of the plight of
the homosexual contributes nothing towards this reparative process. Indeed it
does just the opposite.

For example, Voris tells us that part
of the homosexual’s “sufferings” include “the internal quiet pain of knowing,
that in many cases, this is simply their lot.”

Sexual perversions, however, are
no one’s “lot,” not while there exists an all powerful and merciful God who
desires our salvation and offers mankind, through His One, Holy and Apostolic
Church, the Sacramental means, especially the Sacraments of Penance and the
Holy Eucharist, by which man can conquer his sinful passions. There is no sin,
however grave, that God does not forgive, providing the penitent, by his acts
of contrition, confession and satisfaction desires to be forgiven and make reparation,
and he expresses his belief in the saving power of Our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ who died on the cross for our sins that we might attain eternal glory with
Him in heaven.

There have also been many advances
in reparative therapy in recent years which offer homosexuals additional hope
for recovery – whole or partial – thus opening the door for a normal conjugal
life for those who wish to marry and have children, or the promise of living
out the single life in accordance with God’s ordinances.

Combine all these elements with
the support of parents, relatives and friends who are correctly informed as to
the true nature of the homosexual condition and struggle, and there is cause
for optimism, especially when the homosexual himself is highly motivated.

Finally we come to the main theme
of Voris’ presentation – homosexuals as victim souls.

Although it is not a term to be
found in official Church teachings, unofficially, “victim souls” refers to souls
especially chosen by God to imitate Our
Lord’s Passion in a unique way, and who by their voluntary sufferings, trials
and sacrifices make amends for sinners and their ingratitude in order that
they, the sinners, can receive God’s mercy. In a certain sense, all baptized persons
are called upon to offer up their sufferings and trials by virtue of Our Lord’s
command to take up one’s cross and follow Him. But the true victim soul is
special in that the specific invitation to accept this extraordinary grace is
said to come directly from God.

In his opening statement, Voris
selects Bl. Mother Teresa, Saint John of the Cross, and especially Our Blessed
Mother, as examples of victim souls who suffered greatly in their quest for the
salvation of souls.

Voris then returns to his opening
theme regarding the hardships of being different, of loneliness and not
belonging, the buffeting from external temptations and other “crosses” to which
homosexuals are exposed, and he offers the following solution – become victim
souls:

So he is
different. He must approach life from an entirely different aspect from most
others – that of the victim soul. He is different. He is a treasure beyond
compare from the God who brought him forth and crafted his cross for him to the
circumstances of a fallen and sinful world. He is different. His cross if
accepted, unlike that of many other people’s crosses, will draw countless souls
to Christ. …

I do not know, but I suspect that some point in
their lives, many such souls actually come to the intuition that God has
specially chosen them to be instruments of salvation like few others have been
chosen.And as a result they actually
glory in their cross.

Are
we to understand from Voris’ statement that he holds God responsible for laying
the cross of homosexuality on particular souls, in order that they may become
victim souls and thus attain salvation for themselves and draw others to
Christ? If so, then Voris is guilty of blasphemy. No man is born a sexual
pervert by the will of God that good may come of it.

Homosexuality, like all sexual
perversions, is an acquired vice the seeds of which are usually planted early
in life. Probable causes include disturbed family patterns and parental
psychopathology; premature sexual seduction; infantile sexual fixations; and gender
identity conflicts. Once the individual becomes habituated to the vice and
crosses over the line to the forbidden and perverse, his struggle to free
himself from the vice becomes more difficult. Nevertheless, in each and every
case, the homosexual is faced with a choice to engage in or reject deviant
behavior – a moral choice to do good and avoid evil. In this, he is no “different”
than any other sinner who has ever walked the face of the earth.

For the record, in the 17 years
that this writer spent in conducting research for The Rite of Sodomy** which included an in depth investigation of
homosexual “spirituality” (New Ageism, the Occult, Satanism, Theosophy, Queer
Christian Theology, etc.) I never saw a scintilla of evidence to support Voris’
theories on homosexuals as victim souls.

I have, however, been privileged
to communicate with Catholic men and women with a history of same-sex
relationships, who, by the grace of God, and after a long and difficult
struggle, have become models of Christian charity and humility.

From my conversations with these
individuals, I know that many do, in fact, offer up their sufferings to Our
Lord in reparation for the sins of the world, especially sins against the
Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. But I have yet to hear
any express a desire for extraordinary divine phenomena such as becoming a true
victim soul since these gifts are rare and they depend solely on the free and
supreme will of God.

I believe that he is equally ill advised in his promotion of
the idea of the victim soul as an answer to Catholics caught up in the vice of
sodomy who wish to extricate themselves in order to follow Christ more closely
and advance in the spiritual life.

The following documents have been released by the U.S.Coalition for Life for October 2009 and are available at www.uscl.info.

Do You Need Permission to Save an Unborn Baby ? Today, the Pro-Life Movement in the United States is in need of a major organizational overhaul along the same coalition lines upon which it was founded. “A Pro-Life Study of Power Struggles Within the Right to Life Movement and a Comparison of Two Kinds of Organization – Dictatorship Vs Coalition,” which was written in 1977 by veteran prolifer Arlene Doyle is as pertinent today as it was three decades ago. Must read.http://uscl.info/edoc/doc.php?doc_id=88&action=inline.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, “The relocation and restoration in South America of the formerly suppressed, U.S.-based scandal-ridden Society of Saint John (SSJ) is one of the most outrageous examples of ecclesiastical malfeasance facing the Catholic Church today,” charges Randy Engel, Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life.

“Disbanded and forbidden from representing itself as ‘a recognized ecclesial entity of the Roman Catholic Church’ by Bishop Joseph Martino, of the Diocese of Scranton in November 2004, after years of credible accusations of moral turpitude and gross financial fraud, the disgraced Society of St. John has found protection and solace in the arms of Bishop Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay,” says Engel.

“At the heart of the controversy is Bishop Livieres’ incardination of SSJ founder Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity into the Diocese of Ciudad del Este,” says Engel. “The incardination took place despite repeated warnings from Bishop Martino to Livieres that Urrutigoity’s unchastity, disobedience and outright rebellion, and financial extravagance made him “unfit for ministry,” and despite assurances made in March 2006 by Archbishop Orlando Antonini, the Apostolic Nuncio of Paraguay, that Urrutigoity (and his accomplice and rapist Fr. Eric Ensey) were temporarily in the Diocese of Ciudad del Este, but had been sent away by Bishop Livieres. “… It seems that it does not remain any trace of this Society in Paraguay,” reported Archbishop Antonini. “That turned out not to be the case,” says the Coalition director.

“In his public letter of November 17, 2008, in defense of the SSJ and Urrutigoity,” says Engel, “Bishop Livieres states that Urrutigoity stands innocent of the charges against him; that there have never been any “serious and credible charges” against him; and that the “campaign of defamation” against him “was “orchestrated by one source.” “I believe that the record will show that the bishop’s assertions are incorrect on every count,” says Engel.

“From his earliest days as a seminarian at the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) Seminary of Our Lady of Co-Redemptrix in La Reja, Argentina , Urrutigoity was accused of maintaining particular friendships, and of homosexual tendencies and acts against his fellow seminarians and layman living at the seminary,” says Engel.

“Later, after a brief stay at the priory of Cordoba (Argentina), Urrutigoity was shipped out of Argentina to the SSPX’ St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minn.where he was ordained in 1989 and given a teaching position,” says Engel.

“In 1997, shortly after Urrutigoity was expelled from St. Thomas for ‘subversive activities,’ that is, secretly plotting a new religious order, he sexually molested a seminarian who had left with him – an action prosecutable under both canon law and civil law,” says Engel. “Unfortunately,” says Engel, by the time the incident was reported to SSPX authorities, two years had passed, and Urrutigoity and his followers had found safe haven in the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania headed by Bishop James Timlin.”

“It was Timlin who gave the newly formed pederast Society of St. John its canonical standing as a ‘clerical association of the faithful’; lent his financial assistance to the building of the Society’s “City of God,” a project which attracted more than $5 million in donations but never materialized; and appointed the SSJ members as chaplains at St. Gregory’s Academy, a Catholic boys’ prep school operated by the Fraternity of St. Peter,” says Engel.

“Among the many warnings concerning Urrutigoity that Timlin received but ignored,” says Engel, “was a confidential letter dated February 10, 1999, from the SSPX Superior General Bernard Fellay confirming the charges of sexual abuse against Urrutigoity stated above, and citing earlier charges made at the La Reja Seminary.”

Referring back to Bishop Livieres’ letter of November 2008, Engel notes that “while in 2001 the Scranton Independent Review Board reported that there were no explicit allegations of sex while Urrutigoity was sleeping with students at St. Gregory’s,the bishop failed to report the Board’s finalrecommendation made on March 21, 2002 which stated ‘In view of the credible allegation from the seminarian, his admitted practice of sleeping with boys and young men, and the troubling evaluation by The Southdown Institute, Father Carlos Urrutigoity should be removed from active ministry; his faculties should be revoked; and he should be asked to live privately (emphasis added).’”

Engel reports that “Even after the Scranton Diocese in 2002 was named as a co-defendant in a $1million plus sex abuse lawsuit brought by “John Doe,” a former student at St. Gregory’s Academy, who charged Urrutigoity and another SSJ priest, Eric Ensey with sexual assault,” says Engel, “and the case had been settled in the plaintiff’s favor for $454,550, Timlin continued to praise and support the SSJ just as Bishop Livieres is doing today.”

“There is no doubt that there is a ‘cult of personality’ that has developed around the charismatic and charming Urrutigoity,” says Engel, “and it is well-known that he has powerful familial, financial and ecclesiastical connections in Argentina and Rome, which explains the extraordinary degree of protection and immunity he has enjoyed over the span of more than two decades.” “But our concern is, and always has been, for the physical, moral, and spiritual welfare of the vulnerable and innocent children and youth who will fall into Urrutigoity’s path as a result of his appointment to the diocese by Bishop Livieres,” says Engel

“I believe the Catholics of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este have every right to demand that plans for the canonical erection of the Society of St. John by Bishop Livieres be terminated and canonical procedures begun to return Fr. Urrutigoity to the lay state,” says Engel. “If Bishop Livieres refuses to take action in this matter, then the task falls to the Holy See and ultimately the Holy Father,” she says.

“The U.S. Coalition for Life pledges its assistance to the people of Ciudad del Este by freely providing to Catholic organizations and members of the media throughout Paraguay and South America all the documentation necessary to back up the Coalition’s charges against Fr. Urrutigoity and the Society of St. John,” Engel says.

“We also plan to challenge the Society’s IRS tax-deductible tax status which currently enables the Society to raise funds from clueless Catholics in the United States for shipment to Paraguay ,” she says.

“Neither Urrutigoity nor any other member of the Society of St. John is going to bugger his way through any youth or seminarian in Paraguay or anywhere else if we can help it,” says the Director of the USCL, “but we can’t do it without the help of the Catholic laity and clergy of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este.”

“‘A Catholic Abortion’ – A documentary relating how an ecumenical, national campaign to uphold the dignity of human life was about to be born, and how the pregnancy was terminated by the national bureaucracy of the Catholic Church.” (1)

BABI-Pre-Implantation Diagnosis – Another Anti-Life Genetic Package promoted and funded by the March of Dimes. (2)

“Beyond Family Planning” A document from the Rockefeller/Population Council explaining why family planning is the first step taken on the road to population control. (3)

Sexual Attitudinal Restructuring – How sexuality workshops that incorporate pornographic films are used on Catholic college campuses and in Catholic seminaries and dioceses for the purpose of encouraging and tolerating deviant sexual behavior.

Dr. Jerome Lejeune on Human Nature – “We are the only species on earth to wonder who we are and where are we going and on occasion to ask ourselves the fearsome questions: ‘How is it with your brother?’; ‘What have you done with your child?’” (4)

Blessed Margaret of Castello – A Patron for the Universal Pro-Life Apostolate.

Commentaries by Randy Engel, Director, USCL

(1) “A Catholic Abortion” – On April 9, 2009, Frank Joseph, M.D., (www.abortiontruths.net) in connection with a LifeSiteNews.com release on the defeat of a North Dakota Personhood Bill in the State Senate, asked the troubling question as to why the two Catholic bishops of North Dakota publicly opposed a bill that would have granted personhood status to human beings from the moment of conception.

The answer to his question is that the two bishops were advised to oppose the measure by the North Dakota Catholic Conference which in turn takes its marching orders from the legal counsel of the bishops’ bureaucracy, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), formerly, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference (NCCB/USCC). This should come as no surprise to anyone who has tracked the anti-life agenda of the bishops’ national bureaucracy from its creation in 1966-67 to the present day.

As “A Catholic Abortion” (1971) clearly demonstrates, the NCCB/USCC (USCCB) is no friend of the unborn child, and NEVER has been.

(2) BABI – Another Anti-Life Genetic Baby Package – This detailed article on pre-implantation diagnosis was originally published in the Friends of the Michael Fund Newsletter in the fall of 2002. BABI is the incredibly facetious acronym for blastomere analysis before implantation, that is, the creation of human embryos via in vitro fertilization, the implantation of unaffected embryos in the mother’s womb, and the destruction of affected embryos.

BABI is said to have “special advantages” over other prenatal diagnostic techniques such as amniocentesis since the killing takes place in a laboratory, thus precluding the “problem” of maternal bonding of mother and child associated with late-term eugenic abortions and the “need” for parents to directly participate in the destruction of their offspring.

In 2000, the March of Dimes (MOD) awarded a $65,225 grant titled “To refine a method of ascertaining the chromosomal content of single cells. Goal: Preimplantaion analysis of embryos in IVF settings and prenatal diagnosis using fetal cells from maternal blood,” to pro-abort MOD researcher Dr. Kurt Hirschhorn, Professor of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. (Source: MOD Research Grants 2000, p. 24.)

That same year, Dr. Evan Y. Snyder of Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School received a grant of $750,000 from the March of Dimes for human embryonic stem cell research to restore brain function. (Source: MOD Research Grants 2000, p. 21.)

3. “Beyond Family Planning” by Bernard Berelson is an accompaniment to the infamous

Berelson-Jaffe Memo of 1969 (http://www.uscl.info/index.php?pr=Research_Library) . The Prolife Movement will never get the federal government out of abortion and population control until it gets the federal government out of the “family planning” business.

In answer to the question, “Why is family planning the first step taken on the road to population control?” Berelson responds, because family planning is acceptable from a “broad political standpoint,” that is, it is linked in the public mind with maternal and child health care and is popularly viewed as “a contribution to the effective person freedom of individual couples.”

Berelson states that new abortion techniques which do not require hospitalization could open to door, theoretically, to abortion “camps” similar to the vasectomy “camps” that have been established in developing countries.

Berelson makes the best case for why the Prolife Movement needs to kill the federal government’s multi-billion dollar family planning and population research programs carried out under Title X of the Public Health service Act and Title X of the Foreign Assistance Act.

(4) Dr. Jerome Lejeune on Human Nature – The cause for beatification of Dr. Lejeune has been introduced by Msr Andre Vingt-Trois, Archbishop of Paris. Dr. Lejeune, a world class prolifer and geneticist was an International Advisor to the U.S. Coalition for Life, and the Director of Medical Research of the International Foundation for Genetic Research/Michael Fund from 1978 until his death on Easter Sunday, April 3, 1994. A limited number of prayer cards to obtain graces by God’s servant intercession have been made available to the Michael Fund by Leticia Velasquez (http://cause-of-our-joy.blogspot.com/). Single prayer cards are available for free by sending a S.S.A.E. to the Michael Fund, 4371 Northern Pike, Pittsburgh, PA15146 .